[HN Gopher] Outdoor Sound Propagation in the U.S. Civil War
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Outdoor Sound Propagation in the U.S. Civil War
        
       Author : sdenton4
       Score  : 72 points
       Date   : 2022-08-21 17:53 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (wesclark.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (wesclark.com)
        
       | balentio wrote:
       | This is a not widely documented Civil War phenomenon, but happens
       | probably quite often without people knowing it since by
       | definition, it is the ABSENCE of sound that has to be noticed.
        
       | jchanimal wrote:
       | Similar historic outcome. I was in the room for Howard's Dean
       | "scream". which basically ended his campaign. As far as I can
       | tell the cause was not enough attention paid to the microphone
       | sound reinforcement. He had to push too hard to be heard in the
       | raucous room.
        
         | arminiusreturns wrote:
         | I'd like to find the history of declaring that scream ended his
         | campaign. Since you were there, did anyone in the crowd react
         | in that manner afterwards, or was it really just an excuse the
         | media used to lambast him artificially (which is what it felt
         | like to me)?
        
         | chrisseaton wrote:
         | Did it sound weird in the room, or was it only on the
         | recording?
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | Domobran7 wrote:
       | That is really interesting. Honestly, I had never even thought
       | about it until now, but now it reminded me of how Titanic may
       | have sunk due to fatamorgana.
       | 
       | Weather really does play major role in human history, even when
       | you don't see or expect it.
        
         | balentio wrote:
        
       | prenoob wrote:
       | OT but related: if the subject matter is of interest to you you
       | may enjoy this book ->
       | https://www.google.com/books/edition/Battlefield_Acoustics/O...
        
       | hirundo wrote:
       | If your network is good enough to gather a microphone's data from
       | each soldier/drone on the battlefield, you could centrally
       | assemble a very accurate location and type on any weapon fired
       | and other ambient sound. That data could be used to evaluate
       | risks and return fire accurately within milliseconds. It could
       | give a general a lack of fog-of-war only available before in
       | simulations.
        
         | bragr wrote:
         | I'm not sure this is true given the inaccuracy of shotspotter
        
           | h2odragon wrote:
           | I think shotspotter's problems are more political than
           | technical.
           | 
           | Not to say they don't have technical challenges too: better
           | _sensors_ than the human ear turn out to be fairly easy, but
           | interpreting that data is still hard. Brains are complicated,
           | "hearing" is a process contributed to by nearly every layer
           | of meat that reacts to sound. The human ability to notice a
           | new noise in the cacophony of everyday life is really an
           | amazing trick if you think about it.
        
             | sdenton4 wrote:
             | I know a non-shotspotter effort to identify gunshot sound
             | in a very different context which also is having a very
             | hard time; there is a real unsolved technical problem here.
             | And it makes me think that ID'ing gun model from audio -
             | which will be harder than simply identifying the existence
             | of gunfire - is going to be very difficult.
        
         | livueta wrote:
         | Yes, but with caveats. Disclaimer: just a hobbyist, not my
         | professional area, corrections appreciated
         | 
         | - oldschool radio direction-finding with a couple of
         | directional antennas that are manually positioned and rotated
         | (i.e. based on signal attenuation) doesn't really work for
         | point-in-time things like a single brief signal unless you have
         | massive arrays of well-positioned receivers, which is fine if
         | you're building an HFDF installation but not fine if you're a
         | squad on the move
         | 
         | - multilateration on the basis of signal attenuation, analogous
         | to that sort of oldschool RDF, is possible but IME doesn't
         | perform very well; same problem where you often need a lot of
         | well-positioned points to shrink the possibility envelope down
         | to something useful
         | 
         | - multilateration on the basis of time of arrival, analogous to
         | more modern pseudo-doppler / correlative interferometry RDF
         | techniques, can perform a lot better but requires a very high
         | quality shared time source - if the model is analyzing info
         | from an array of observers, this can be a problem on typical
         | battlefield network designs that prioritize availability over
         | performance - but this approach also enables single site setups
         | where a local time source and a handful of receivers can read a
         | bearing without actually needing to network at all, though this
         | involves a lot of math
        
           | wbl wrote:
           | GPS solves the sync issue to the order of nanoseconds. You
           | can also have local TOA determine angles that get passed up
           | to triangulate. The US Army deployed some of these techniques
           | in antisniper work in Iraq.
        
             | livueta wrote:
             | That's a good point, and required time precision seems like
             | it should be proportional to the velocity of the signal
             | being investigated. I had some bad experiences trying to
             | use gps time for RDF, but that might not apply here.
             | 
             | From https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/mobisys07/full_pa
             | pers/p...
             | 
             | > Our time synchronization approach yields errors signif-
             | icantly less than 100 microseconds. As the sound travels
             | about 3 cm in that time, time synchronization errors have a
             | negligible effect on the system.
             | 
             | Sounds like it?
             | 
             | The anti-sniper systems I knew about already (Boomerang)
             | are that single-site setup where time sync isn't a problem.
             | The "Individual Gunshot Detector" sounds more like what
             | you're describing.
             | 
             | > The Individual Gunshot Detector (IGD) by Qinetiq consists
             | of a shoulder-mounted unit with four acoustic sensors and a
             | chest display that attaches to body armor.
             | 
             | Still looking for more detail, but that sounds like a local
             | ToA > pass up angles for triangulation type deal.
        
           | galangalalgol wrote:
           | I read an ieee journal article over a decade ago claiming
           | success with helmet mounted sensors. The system used the time
           | of the sonic crack and the muzzle report as observed from
           | each helmet. Its like GPS, if you have 5 or more observers
           | you can solve for the time reference as well. Actually, it
           | might be less since they had multiple observations from each
           | helmet. It supposedly could then highlight the location of
           | the shot using AR. It then went on to say they could tell
           | what the firearm was from the muzzle report. Can't find the
           | article now. Doesn't seem that outlandish, but as you say,
           | accuracy would be the real question. The speed of sound can
           | vary so much based on weather.
        
             | livueta wrote:
             | Maybe this? https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/mobisys07/
             | full_papers/p...
             | 
             | > It then went on to say they could tell what the firearm
             | was from the muzzle report.
             | 
             | > over 95% caliber estimation accuracy for all shots, and
             | close to 100% weapon estimation accuracy for 4 out of 6
             | guns tested.
             | 
             | That's pretty cool. Gotta read the whole thing now.
             | 
             | e: kinda relevant to the other subthread about time sync:
             | 
             | > Correlating ToA measurements requires a common time base
             | and precise time synchronization in the sensor network. The
             | Routing Integrated Time Synchronization (RITS) [15]
             | protocol relies on very accurate MAC-layer time-stamping to
             | embed the cumulative delay that a data message accrued
             | since the time of the detection in the message itself. That
             | is, at every node it measures the time the message spent
             | there and adds this to the number in the time delay slot of
             | the message, right before it leaves the current node. Every
             | receiving node can subtract the delay from its current time
             | to obtain the detection time in its local time reference.
             | The service provides very accurate time conversion (few ms
             | per hop error), which is more than adequate for this
             | application. Note, that the motes also need to convert the
             | sensorboard time stamps to mote time as it is described
             | earlier.
        
         | MichaelCollins wrote:
         | > _within milliseconds._
         | 
         | I think you're overestimating the speed of sound a bit. You'd
         | need nearly 5 seconds to hear artillery fire a mile away.
        
       | polishdude20 wrote:
       | "Guns fired at the funeral of Queen Victoria in London in 1901
       | were heard in Scotland"
       | 
       | Wait how is this possible?
        
         | MichaelCollins wrote:
         | Probably the atmospheric version of SOFAR; thermal layers in
         | the atmosphere acting as a wave guide for very low frequency
         | sound waves. In the ocean, the sound of explosions can travel
         | thousands of miles in the SOFAR channel.
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOFAR_channel
        
         | bee_rider wrote:
         | It seems a bit odd, huh?
         | 
         | I found on google:
         | 
         | https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-jun-24-me-49796...
         | 
         | Interestingly similar phrase:
         | 
         | > Guns fired at the funeral of Queen Victoria in London in 1901
         | were heard in Scotland, but not across a wide region in
         | between.
         | 
         | > Guns fired at the funeral of Queen Victoria in London in 1901
         | were heard in Scotland, but not in wide areas of northern
         | England.
         | 
         | Searching the exact phrase
         | 
         | > "Guns fired at the funeral of Queen Victoria in London in
         | 1901 were heard in Scotland"
         | 
         | Turned up a couple sites, one from the national academies press
         | 
         | https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/25226/chapter/3
         | 
         | but it appears in a "background" section of a work on highway
         | engineering, not cited.
         | 
         | The other sites seemed like maybe sketchy textbook sharing
         | sites, so I didn't check them out.
         | 
         | Seems like maybe a popular bit of questionable trivia?
        
           | schmendreck wrote:
        
         | analog31 wrote:
         | Less background noise, and better hearing, may have been
         | factors.
        
         | stevenwoo wrote:
         | Weather inversion where the sound the travels slightly faster
         | and farther in different temperature air medium plus reflection
         | of waves that would normally dissipate to upper atmosphere if I
         | read this correctly. http://spectrums.com/sound-and-the-
         | weather/
        
           | [deleted]
        
         | duskwuff wrote:
         | In this context, "guns" probably means cannon, not small arms
         | like rifles or pistols.
        
           | bragr wrote:
           | Even still, cannon fire from 250+ miles (at least, that's
           | just to the border) seems improbable
        
             | R0b0t1 wrote:
             | Seems plausible base on my experiences outdoors, but it
             | heavily depends on ambient conditions. Over such large
             | distances I think the unlikely part is you do that trick
             | twice, but even that is plausible merely by looking at
             | seasonal changes.
        
             | vidanay wrote:
             | And there's my weekly reminder that the British Isles are
             | SMALL.
        
               | galangalalgol wrote:
               | No kidding! I was on the interstate this last week and a
               | sign showed more than twice that distance just to the
               | next major city in the state. (along that highway, there
               | were closer ones in other directions)
        
               | pessimizer wrote:
               | There's a saying that goes something like "Americans
               | think 100 years is a long time, and Europeans think 100
               | miles is a long way."
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-08-21 23:00 UTC)